Bonus points are one of the topics that many candidates are interested in at the Tuoi Tre newspaper's college admissions and career guidance programs. In the photo: the counseling team answers questions from candidates in Thanh Hoa on the morning of January 18 - Photo: NAM TRAN
Every year, college admissions remains the most sensitive area of education : unstable policies, even a small change in regulations, can force hundreds of thousands of students and parents to reconsider their plans. And like any policy, changes always have double-edged consequences: some are positive, some are negative, and some are reasonable but create unpredictable side effects.
Lack of scientific basis
The core of the story isn't about whether English is important or not. English is clearly a instrumental skill, like math or computer science/AI: it helps students learn better, access knowledge faster, and expand career opportunities. Because it's an instrumental skill, it needs to play the right role in admissions.
The problem is that English language proficiency rewards are turning a "learning tool" into a "priority ticket" in the ranking race, and worse, it often lacks a sufficiently strong scientific basis to convince society that this is a fair design.
If "adding 1-2 points" is meant to encourage English learning, the first question to answer is: On what basis was that number determined? 1 point, 2 points, or even 0.5 points can significantly alter the passing or failing ranking of some candidates.
If English is considered a tool skill that should be given extra points, then why not give extra points in math for fields where math is truly the "backbone," such as semiconductors, AI, and data science? Even if the argument is "because the field requires core skills," math and computational thinking are even more crucial in these fields.
If we open the door to awarding points for English language certificates, people will ask: So, will scores in mathematics, logical thinking, or assessments of mathematical and computational skills also be rewarded?
And if the answer is "no," then English is being treated as an inexplicable exception. An exception must have a special reason and special evidence, it must demonstrate a certain way of thinking; otherwise, it's just a "policy habit" maintained because... it's always been a way to add points.
Justice
Another, and most sensitive, limitation is the issue of equal opportunity. When certificates are converted into bonus points, we inadvertently legitimize the advantage of eligibility as an advantage in terms of scores. The situation easily becomes paradoxical: candidates from disadvantaged areas with superior combined scores may still lose simply because they lack the "bonus points" from the certificates.
In that case, the main entrance exam (based on subject combinations) would lose its value, while the secondary entrance exam (certificates) could determine who finishes first. Therefore, admissions risk shifting from testing aptitude to testing the ability to accumulate advantages.
Actually, there's a more "correct" and less controversial approach. If a particular field requires English as a core competency, set clear thresholds: pass or fail. Industry-specific thresholds are both targeted (ensuring sufficient proficiency to learn) and reduce social unrest.
Certificates can be used as substitutes for English scores in the subject combination, but once substituted, no additional points will be added, to avoid "bonus" points.
And most logically: English certificates should be used after admission, class placement, course exemptions, and shortening of the learning path, so that learners "don't have to relearn what they already know," in line with the spirit of articulation, recognizing the value of English proficiency and practical skills, and encouraging English learning.
This year's draft regulations show commendable efforts to "clean up" the system, but the practice of awarding extra points for English remains a point of contention, creating the impression that a secondary admissions process is overshadowing the primary one. With a sensitive policy like admissions, decisions shouldn't be based on inertia or emotion, but rather on data and fair impact assessments.
Restoring English proficiency to its proper role (threshold based on major/one-time replacement/exemption from courses after admission, etc.) would make the regulations simpler and less problematic.
Analysis is needed.
At a minimum, there must be an assessment of the predictive value of the IELTS certificate for academic outcomes in fields that genuinely require English proficiency, along with an analysis of its impact on the fairness of admissions across regions and economic conditions.
Without such analysis, bonus points become a rather arbitrary policy decision, and in admissions, arbitrariness is the most likely "source" of controversy.
Source: https://tuoitre.vn/van-con-hat-san-diem-thuong-ielts-20260119082250022.htm
Comment (0)